It appears that Hawaii Senator, Sam Slom, has been interested in finding out the truth about Obama’s birth origins. But why has he not investigated whether Obama’s recently released long-form Certificate of Live Birth is authentic?

Here is what researcher and writer, Devvy, wrote in her recent article: “Congress - Yes, Obama Is Above The Law:”

“The other thing I urge you to do, which I outlined in my recent column, Force an investigation into Obama's birth certificate criminal fraud, involves a state senator who has been very outspoken regarding Obama/Soetoro's birth certificate. The key to busting this wide open could be the Hawaii State Legislature:

‘My second letter went out to Sen. Sam Slom. He serves in the Hawaii State Senate. That document was allegedly generated by a state agency in the State of Hawaii. Their legislature has the authority to conduct an investigation into how that forgery was manufactured, by who and more importantly, who requested it and when? That won't happen unless YOU also write a letter. Hard copy letters (or a fax) is something tangible that can't be ignored. The phones ring all day long at the offices of state and federal lawmakers. Sometimes you can't even get through or you just get voice mail.’

This weekend, YOU need to write and mail off a snail mail letter to Sen. Slom. If his desk is flooded with tens of thousands of letters - and folks in Hawaii make this an issue - the heat will become so great, they have to act. Be sure to continue following up with Slom's office by calling a week after you send your snail mail letter. Thousands of us must keep the heat on his office until something breaks in that legislature. It can happen, but it takes all of us. Sen. Slom needs to man up or shut up.” http://www.rense.com/general94/cong_dev.htm.

I have reported on this blog about the great amount of existing evidence that the electronic image and the underlying paper document are both forgeries. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/06/congress-investigates-sexual-flings-of.html. As a Hawaii State Senator, Senator Slom surely has the resources and influence to be able to dispel this evidence and confirm with the Hawaii Department of Health whether the document image that Obama released on the internet on April 27, 2011 is authentic.

We should follow Devvy’s advice and find out why Senator Slom has not done more to seek the truth about Obama’s recently released birth certificate. We need to demand of him that if he is going to do his job and honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution, he needs to fight this battle all the way and not just make believe that he is.

46
comments:

Over at his blog, Dr. Conspiracy is attempting to be an apologist for all the vicious Obot statements that have polluted our civil discourse on the question of Obama's eligibility to be President.

Here is a portion of Dr. Conspiracy's article:

"I’ll let Rikker speak for himself; however, I do note that sometimes people in the heat of angry discussion make exaggerated statements. For example, I doubt that Obots have been at every single birther court hearing, or that they were really winking at the judge (attributed to Foggy). It is the nature of online media that there are different social norms at work. The lack of social cues leads discussions to spiral out of control where people say things they would never say in person."

Dr. Conspiracy's comments come in the aftermath of reporting done by Dr. Jerome Corsi at WND on the phenomenon of the Obot libelous attacks against concerned Americans seeking to protect themselves and their country from the impostor now sitting in the White House.

Dr. Conspiracy's article is nothing more than an attempt at whitewashing and making excuses for all the libelous and scurrilous comments that have been made by Obots against so many concerned Americans (including myself) who have been seeking to find out the truth about Obama's identity and place of birth.

Check out Snopes.com which concludes that there is no basis to contend that Obama's long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. What is suspect is that Snopes only addresses three straw man arguments which it quickly debunks (the name Kenya, the name of the hospital, and use of "African" as a race). Nowhere in its analysis is there any mention of the digital manipulation and kerning on the underlying paper birth certificate. How convenient.

The Snopes analysis may be viewed here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

Let's not forget that Doc Constipato himself has done a good bit of that sort of questionable attempting to shut off any non-pro-obama talk to the point of lying in vast terms (from his half-vast blog).

As I think everyone knows Snopes.com is run by a husband and wife team of Democrats that are clearly Barky fans. Maybe Dr. Corsi will eventually uncover them.

Also aout two weeks ago I sent a lettrer not only to the political leadershp in HI, but to Sen. Slom also. Since he is the sold Republican in the HI Senate it's hard to see how effective he can be, but you're right - he does wish to clear up the issue and hopefully straighten things up in HI in the process. Part of the material I sent him was my letter to FBI Director Mueller in DC with a proposed sequence of the FBI investigation ... Kapiolani first. If the exact image of the WHBC does not reside there as the law requires ... well ...

With the writer's permission, I am publishing here a letter that a concerned American recently sent to Senator Slom:

"Dear Honorable Senator Slom:

I am requesting that you please look into the Birth Certificate issue in Hawaii..Please honor the Subpoena that was issued by Judge Lambeth from the DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON DC. The voters of this Country have a compelling interest in discovering the truth, where as it maybe what was released was possibly the truth, but we will never know unless it can be seen by professional authorities. I spoke with your FBI Dept 2 times recently on June 16, 2011, the man told me that this Birth Certificate issue is just rumors that have been spread around by the internet and the Birthers, he did not let me talk at all, but he did state that they are not investigating the report that Doug Vogt sent to them. I find this egregious and disrespectful; the American people have a right to know the truth.

We are concerned citizens who come from all walks of life and educational backgrounds and span all Parties and age groups, have found common ground and are committed to exposing the criminals at all levels of our government. We are the disenfranchised and betrayed citizens with no Party and no representative in our failed government that is indeed pretty sad isn’t it.

It was reported Governor Abercrombie looked for the Birth Certificate in Jan 2011 and said he could not find a Birth Certificate, and then it showed up and was reported to the American People on April 27, 2011. I find this very suspicious..I believe that you have the power to resolve this issue. Please Mr. Slom, I beg of you for our Country, as we have never been in this position of such unscrupulous turmoil, do your honorable job that you took oath on, and follow thru and investigate this issue as soon as possible. I love my Country and I want to save her!!!!

The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or

(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

What is your argument that only the court can issue Orly's subpoena?

Second, you hide behind all the procedural minutia. Rather, I look at the matter in a much more simple fashion. Senator Slom does not need to honor any subpoenas. His simple quest, based on his constitutional duty to protect and defend the Constitution, is to just validate Obama's alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth that he published on the internet on April 27, 2011. As a Hawaii State Senator, he has both the resources and influence to do that. Also, Obama has publicly released his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. There, therefore, is no privacy issue.

I agree Puzo. Any defense in the name of privacy by Hawaii is meritless. Obama released his long-form BC to the media and to public claiming that it came directly from the Hawaii DOH. If this is in fact true, then Obama's long-form BC is a matter of public record and and any claim that the BC in Hawaii DOH is protected by priacy laws is meritless.

I have encouraged Dr. Corsi and WND to return to Hawaii for a week and track down Onaka, Fuddy and Obkubo and address the allegations that Obama's BC is a forgery to them. Dr. Corsi said he tried but was denied interviews to these individuals. I can tell that Onaka, Okubo, and Fuddy are state employees who work for a state government agency. Dr. Corsi and WND as members of the press have every right to interview with these individuals. Corsi and WND need to go back to Hawaii and set up camp at the Hawaii DOH. When Onaka, Okubo, and Fuddy arrive and leave for work each day, they will have to pass by WND to address questions, on camera of course to be spread viral across the internet. Any denial of access to Hawaii DOH to WND would be a severe violation of civil rights although they might be restricted in staying out of sensitive areas of Hawaii DOH.

It's easy to see why Froggy Fogbrow - err, Bill Bryant (or whatever his real name might be) is kicked off of being able to practice law in CA ... oh, yeah - he "voluntarily" asked them to restrict him from doing so (yeah, righhhht!!). He can't even be honest about that.

He;'s not only a lousy lawyer judging from the posts I've seen, but he thinks everyone else is and dumb as he is.

New full page ad today in the Washington Times National Weekly addresses the Obama forging the long form birth certificate question directly to Speaker Boehner of the U.S. House of Reps. He is the key road block to getting this constitutional crisis resolved.

"In addition to your suggestion to contact Sam Slom, your readers would do well to contact Rep. Darrell Issa regarding the birth certificate fraud. The link below is to a whistle blower form accessible from Rep. Issa's web page (http://issa.house.gov/) and is specifically for the purpose of reporting waste, FRAUD, and abuse.

In response to the suggestion from the concerned person aout contacting Issa, I actually did that on Jun 7, 2012 and at the same time wrote Sen. Carl Levin chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations - and even others giving them links to the Vogt criminal complaint and advising I had also contacted the FBI.

Everyone might as well get into the act and snow these bastards under with letters. that way they will understand why they are likely to be voted out in the next election applying to them.

My conclusion is that Congress has avoided investigating/vetting Obama's eligibility for two reasons: 1) Because of a SCOTUS misinterpretation, outside of the court's constitutional jurisdiction and in violation of jurisprudence AND the common law itself, an 1869 case created a constitutional 'citizenship at birth' for any child born on U.S. soil. This was conflated to 'natural born citizen,' so Obama's claim of Hawaiian birth cut due diligence off at the knees; and 2) While the Framers avoided the mob rule of Democracy, we have DEVOLVED to such a degree that we are afraid of minority rule, i.e., Muslims, Illegal Mexicans, and Blacks who might riot if Obama is legally challenged.

I recommend everyone reading Dean C. Haskins' article, "1787 Called: They Want Their Constitution Back," which can be read at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37723

Mr. Haskins has done an excellent job at putting his legislative representative on notice of his legal and moral obligations to investigate and/or report Obama's fraudulent actions regarding his alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth and the possible criminal consequences for failing to do so.

Hello Mr. Apuzzo. You asked a good question. I will give you a possible answer.

Slom is a Republican. Most Republicans are against doing anything related to the issue of Obama's eligibility to be President of the USA. Why? I do not know for sure but the main reason that is usually stated is that they think it might be detrimental to Republicans to raise the issue of Obama's eligibility.Several Republicans in the past have acted against raising this issue of Obama's eligibility. Recently, the Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, vetoed a bill asking proofs to run as a candidate in the Presidential election!

The only one who has had the courage to raise the issue of Obama's eligibility is Donald Trump. But since Obama released the bogus, forged long form birth certificate, Donald Trump has been completely silent on this matter.

Slom of HI is not that way; he merely does not understand that being born in HI (or not) has no bearing on the nbC status of Barky.

If you'll check this link, I think you'll see that. He's not your typical HI in-the-tank-for-Obama miscreant such as is seen in the HI DOH.

ttps://wb-gop-oversight.house.gov/

Even though he is the sole Pubbie in the HI senate he is one of the (very) few hopes in HI political tribes of getting something done. Most of them there (as in DV) are craven cowards willing to hide behind "logic" such as the CRS Memos present and just plain stupidity aand laziness in not personally looking into what the definition of nbC really is.

May I advise all of you to be cautious and refer to the WhiteHouse.gov PDF as 'altered.' The alterations strongly suggest an act of forgery.

'Altering' a birth certificate is illegal, so be satisfied with that. Proving forgery will require production of the actual document, or a Certified Photostatic Copy with the Seal of Hawaii. In light of recent circumstances, only the original is reliable.

Imagine if the valid Birth Certificate was taken apart in Adobe Illustrator, fiddled with to create the anomalies, and posted just to create the controversy.

I have already written on Minor v. Happersett (1875) extensively both in my Kerchner v. Obama/Congress court filings which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, on this blog, on Obot blogs, and other places on the internet. Here is just one quick reference which you can find in my January 27, 2011 article entitled, "The Two Issues Regarding Obama's Eligibility to be President," found at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-issues-regarding-obamas-eligibility.html.

"But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that he was born in Hawaii, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen?" The Framers' constitutional scheme, historical evidence (e.g. Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Section 212), and U.S. Supreme Court precedent (e.g. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) show that the American common law definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" has its basis in natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. That definition, which to this day has never been changed, is a child born in the country (or equivalent such as being born abroad to parents in the service of their nation) to a U.S. citizen father and mother."

In addition to that posting there are many, many writings on Minor v Happersett by Attorney Apuzzo in this blog and in the lawsuit Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al filed on 20 Jan 2009 and taken all the way via a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court in Sep 2010.

Leo D is a little late to the game with his so called discovery of Minor v Happersett and a quite remiss in not citing the work and writings of others on that very case as precedent in establishing what the NBC clause meant to the founders and what SCOTUS said it meant.

There have been numerous other people writing about Minor v Happersett which Leo D does not mention as is Leo's habit and m.o. in his ongoing publishing of his self proclaimed new revelations in his blog. A simple Google search will find many, many such essays in the debates about Obama's eligibility going back to the writings of P.A. Madison in The Federalist Blog in 2008.

That reminds me. What ever happened to Leo D's plans to bring a lawsuit in Hawaii when he chimed in on Miss Tickly's research there?

The danger with the WHBC - no matter what it's referred to as, 'forgery' or 'altered' - is that any investigation will go the the HI DOH to inspect the source document and it is already known via Jermoe Corsi's information that a newly-implanted document having the characteristics of the WHBC was "implanted" into the HI DOH post-binder and was not there prior to that time (about Feb, 2011 IIRC)of being reported by someone actually observing the "new" version in the post binder and reporting from within the DOH by cell phone of the "new" particulars showing up on the new, improved document that had not been part of the 2007/8 multiple-COLB effort.

The DOH is not where the investigation should start but rather it should start at Kapiolani Hospoital which is required by law to retain such natality information. They should have not only the actual contemporaneous original paper document with the signature of the licensed MD delivering little Barky but also such birth metrics as height, weight, etc. and signatures of witnesses.

If such a document, along with the mother's admission & discharge paperwork, does not exist then there is NO flyspeck matching of the WHBC and the fraud is proven. THEN the investigation can delve into the why and how of the HI DOH documentation evolving and who was the impetus behind it.

Of some interest is the fact that on the WHBC, the doctor signing it has been in HI about one year which makes one wonder how he could build up much of a practice is such a sort time in the face of already established competition. After all, he was not a 'local' at the time, coming from being educated on the mainland. He also delivered babies "all over HI" and not just at Kapiolani as shown here:

Donofrio's claims strike an uncommonly familiar chord as he is repeating what seems to be a pattern of his - suddenly "discovering" what numerous others have researched and written about extensively such as the Minor v. Happersett case as used in the Kerchner legal action.

Perhaps he never read the extensive material done by Mario in and for the Kerchner litigation so perhaps that's why he cited nothing from those extensive works. Then again, possibly there is some other reason for his ignoring that work. Seems odd!

As for additional observations, Leo has consistently believed Obama has a BC in HI based solely on his own (Leo's) presumption and he repeatedly stated that even before the fake COLB's in 2007/8 were known (and were shown to be fake). He seems to just "know" such things ... or maybe any real evidence isn't needed. The DOH LOVES guys like that ... there's one born every minute as Barnum used to say.

Aside from not bringing suit in HI as he claimed, the only litigation I'm aware of after his SCOTUS debacle in 2008 or so is his Chrysler effort which didn't seem to go anywhere.

What I meant more specifically was whether you agreed with Donofrio on the issue of precedent. I have read much of your writing, including those on this case but maybe I missed a discussion of 'precedent' vs. 'dicta'. I think Donofrio's analysis is good as it deals with the establishment of 'precedent'.

Is it possible for the OBOTS to spin this view of the case and deny precedent? More likely they would focus on the 'doubt' comments in the case - or ignore it completely since they don't want to talk about NBC.

As I said to you in my previous comment, I said in my January 27, 2011 essay:

"But apart from the place of birth issue, we also have the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Assuming that he was born in Hawaii, does Obama meet the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen?" The Framers' constitutional scheme, historical evidence (e.g. Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations, Section 212), and U.S. Supreme Court precedent (e.g. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) show that the American common law definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" has its basis in natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. That definition, which to this day has never been changed, is a child born in the country (or equivalent such as being born abroad to parents in the service of their nation) to a U.S. citizen father and mother."

Do you see the word “precedent” followed by the citation to Minor v. Happersett?

I have also had the discussion on various Obot blogs in which they argued that Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was dicta and I argued that since the Court had to first determine whether Mrs. Happersett was a citizen before it could determine whether she had a right to vote, the Court’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was not dicta but rather precedent. I had the same discussion with the same Obots in reference to The Venus (a prize case) where I similarly told them that Chief Justice Marshall’s definition of the “natives or indigenes” was not dicta but rather central to the Court’s holding and therefore binding precedent.

Did you read my article posted on Orly’s blog on January 2, 2009 at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html For your information, here is one of the comments to my post by Francis Daniel: “The precedent case, Minor v. Happersett uses the word "sufficient" at its conclusion which makes this a weak argument. If it had used the word "necessary" then it would be very strong support for the argument defining a NBC as person born on U.S. soil of two U.S. citizens.” Note he calls the case a “precedent case.” In my article I even said that the Minor “natural born Citizen” “test” was confirmed by Wong Kim Ark.

There really was never any issue in my mind whether the Minor case was precedent setting. I always said that it was. I have always treated ii as precedent on the definition of a "natural born Citizen." In my essays, I have always included it in the list of U.S. Supreme Court precedents that go to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. See my many writings on Minor in my blog.

I do not understand what your point is. Why would you think that I would argue that Minor is not precedent? What am I missing?

Just to give you more background on this matter of the Minor v. Happersett case, see my discussion of the definition of a “natural born Citizen” and, among the many other cases and sources, the Minor v. Happersett case starting on page 20 of my January 19, 2010 opening brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case which can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19

I did not mean to be confusing. While I have seen your essays and indeed your references to precedent, I guess I had just not put it in context until I read Donofrio's recent article. In that regard, his essay was helpful to me in making the distinction. This is perhaps in part my ignorance of what actually creates a binding precedent by the court, something I am now a bit more clear on.

I have always found your writings to be the most informative when it comes to this issue, and thus my frequent visits to your blog.

I am Mario Apuzzo, Attorney at Law of the State of New Jersey. I represented Commander Charles Kerchner and other plaintiffs in the case of Kerchner v. Obama/Congress which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is to let anyone who is interested to know that there is an "Apuzzo" posting comments on the internet on the Obama eligibility issue who is not me. I hope that whatever this other Apuzzo has posted is supportive of my and others' efforts rather than destructive. One can see an example of such posts at the following link which are in reference to Leo Donofrio's latest essay on Minor v. Happersett.

Perhaps this is a reason for the courts to not hear the cases regarding the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Through Minor the court has already decided that Obama is not eligible. It has been stipulated by Mr. Obama and has become common knowledge that he was born under British jurisdiction. What else can the court say?

Then what can the court do to enforce its already published opinion? Who's job is it to remove Obama?

We need to let everyone know this and to challenge all of Obama's actions and appointments on this basis.

We also need to challenge anyone who refers to him as "President" or who treats him in any official capacity. For example, Congress has no authority to bring a bill to anyone other than a legal, sitting president. And only such a president has the authority to sign or veto such a bill.

The same goes for anyone whom Obama has appointed to any position.

In the course of all this we need to determine who is next in line who is not also involved in this felonious fraud.

Congress needs to get busy replacing Obama according to the Constitution. If all else fails, read the instructions.

So Leo and Mario agree that the U.S. Supreme Court precedent, set in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and which to this day has never been changed, is that the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Mario believes (but Leo does not) that birth location can also be an equivalent such as being born abroad to parents in the service of their nation. That difference of opinion is relevant when discussion someone such as John McCain, but not someone such as Barack Obama.

Barack Obama does not meet the Supreme Court definition of "natural born citizen".

What to do now? As your Representative and Senators to support and defend the Constitution... including Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. It is their responsibility to handle the situation when a President or Vice-President fails to qualify.

Donofrio believes that McCain is not eligible and Mario believes that he is eligible. I take a middle position on this: McCain is not a natural born citizen, but that he meets the intent of the Founding Fathers which was to have Presidents with no foreign and competing allegiances.

McCain was not born on US sovereign territory. Per the 1903 treaty, Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone. The US administered the Canal Zone as if we were sovereign. We also paid rent to Panama, which we would not do if we were sovereign.

However, since Panama did not grant citizenship to Panama-born children of non-citizens, McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance. And that option from Panama law about opting for Panamanian citizenship at age 21 does not constitute an allegiance.

McCain was born free of a foreign allegiance, just like a natural born citizen.

Vattel's chapter on the armies of state makes McCain a citizen at birth but not a natural born citizen. Vattel says these children are "reputed" to be born in the country, but reputed by whom? Reputed by man, not by the laws of nature. By Vattel's definition of natural born citizen, McCain is not one, and this explains why Vattel does not state that the children born in the armies of state are natives or natural born citizens.

Donofrio believes that McCain is ineligible and Mario believes that he is. I take a somewhat middle position on this: McCain is not a natural born citizen, but yet eligible to be President by the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was to have Presidents who were born free of foreign allegiances.

McCain was not born on US sovereign territory. Per the 1903 treaty, Panama, not the US was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone. The US administered the Canal Zone as if it were sovereign. We paid annual rent to Panama, which we would not do if we the sovereign.

However, since Panama does not grant citizenship to children of foreigners, McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance. And the option he had to acquire Panamanian citizenship at age 21 does not constitute an allegiance.

In his chapter on the armies of the state, Vattel says that these children are reputed born in the country, but reputed by whom? Reputed by man, and not by the laws of nature. By Vattel’s own definition of natural born citizen, McCain was not born in the country by the laws of nature, which explains why does he does not label these children as natives or natural born citizens in this chapter.

Donofrio believes that McCain is ineligible and Mario believes that he is. I take a somewhat middle position on this: McCain is not a natural born citizen, but yet eligible to be President by the intent of the Founding Fathers, which was to have Presidents who were born free of foreign allegiances.

McCain was not born on US sovereign territory. Per the 1903 treaty, Panama, not the US was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone. The US administered the Canal Zone as if it were sovereign. We paid annual rent to Panama, which we would not do if we the sovereign.

However, since Panama does not grant citizenship to children of foreigners, McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance. And the option he had to acquire Panamanian citizenship at age 21 does not constitute an allegiance.

In his chapter on the armies of the state, Vattel says that these children are reputed born in the country, but reputed by whom? Reputed by man, and not by the laws of nature. By Vattel’s own definition of natural born citizen, McCain was not born in the country by the laws of nature, which explains why does he does not label these children as natives or natural born citizens in this chapter.

I do not agree with your analysis. You are willing to make McCain a "natural born Citizen" because Panama law allowed for it at the time of his birth by providing only for jus sanguinis citizenship. We cannot allow another nation to dictate whether a person is a "natural born Citizen" under U.S. law. To do so would be to compromise our sovereignty to decide such important matters, so important that it would determine who is eligible to be President.

Vattel's focus in Section 212-217 of The Law of Nations is on the citizenship of the parents. It is that citizenship which is passed on to the child at the time of birth and which as the child matures best assures the preservation of the nation. The child, upon reaching the age of majority, is then free to choose another allegiance and citizenship.

Vattel argues in Section 215 that the place of birth alone produces no change to the rule under natural law. He gives no controlling effect to the place of birth, unless the nation passes a positive law regulating the matter.

Under Vattel's explanation, the place of birth only affects jurisdiction. Hence, under U.S. law, we can surely recognize a nation's right to decide the national character of a person born within its jurisdiction. This means that a nation whose jurisdiction covers that territory or physical space (land, water, air) where the birth occurs, will have power to decide the national character of a person which brings with it rights for and obligations to be performed by the person affected and protection for that person from the nation that is exerting that jurisdiction.

Vattel tells us in Section 217 that if someone is born to parents serving the armies of their nation or to parents acting in a diplomatic capacity for their nation, that person is not born subject to the jurisdiction of the nation on whose territory the birth occurs. Rather, by the law of nature and the law of nations, that person is "reputed" born in the nation of the parents. Hence, there is no occasion for that nation where the birth occurs to exert any jurisdiction over that child. Please note that this is the same rule followed by the old English common law. If all nations followed this rule, none of these children would be citizens of the nation in whose such births occurs.

Under Vattel, the child follows the national condition of the parents. With a birth in the armies situation, that national condition is not broken because no foreign nation has any jurisdiction over the child. According to Vattel, this rule exists under natural law and not under any positive law.

Vattel does caution that a nation can pass positive laws (“civil or political laws”) which “for particular reasons” regulate a foreign birth to citizen parents and that those positive laws must be followed. Hence, he says that these positive laws trump or abrogate natural law and the law of nations. Note that our nation did just that in 1790, 1795, and thereafter. Also note that no Congressional Act provides that McCain is not a “natural born Citizen.”

Natural law and the law of nations provide that McCain is a "natural born Citizen." There is no positive law existing in our nation which provides that McCain is not a "natural born Citizen." The positive laws of foreign nations do not trump U.S. laws. Hence, McCain is a "natural born Citizen" under natural law and the law of nations and under our own positive laws.

I apologize for posting my comment 3 times. I did not think the first one took, and so I ended up rewriting it (yeah, I had not saved the first comment), and then I somehow posted the rewritten comment twice. Yikes.

I think you misunderstood my statement about McCain. I argue that he is not a natural born citizen at all. This is because he was not born on US sovereign territory. But I do believe the Founding Fathers would have considered McCain eligible to be President, since he was not born with a foreign allegiance.

If Panama had bestowed citizenship to McCain when he was born (which incidentally was Panamanian law from 1903 to 1929), then McCain would have been born with a foreign allegiance, making him as ineligible as Obama (also born with a foreign allegiance due to his foreign citizen father).

Since the Founders and Framers followed natural law and the law of nations, they would not have recognized Panama's bestowing citizenship upon the son of a U.S. military officer who was serving the national defense and who happened to be born on its territory. Panama would not have granted its citizenship to such a child. Such a notion was even contrary to the old English common law. Hence, you put forth a scenario which would not have happened then nor does it happen today.

We do not grant U.S. citizenship to children born in the U.S. to foreign military personnel or diplomats. These children are not born within the jurisdiction of the U.S.

Hence, there is no problem with McCain being declared a "natural born Citizen."

Another expert speaks out on the April 27, 2011 internet image of the Obama alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth. See http://thepoliticalsandbox.blogspot.com/2011/06/flat-scan.html and http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=314717. Gary Poyssick, an Adobe software expert, while not going as far as to declare the document a forgery, makes the following conclusions.

1. The image is assembled in layers which contain suspicious “Clipping Masks” which he says should not be found in a normal scan of a document.

2. The scanned birth certificate does not contain a background which would be consistent with scanning it. Scanners contain a white plastic that is glued to the underside of the cover of the scanner and which is placed upon the document that rest on the glass surface when the cover is closed. That white plastic background creates a certain image on the scanned document. The Obama birth certificate image does not contain any such image which one would expect to be there. Rather, it contains a background of security paper which paper would have to be placed underneath the actual scanned document as it rests on the scanner glass. The way all the images line up perfectly, it is virtually impossible for someone to line up two papers documents to such perfection so that such a perfectly aligned image is produced.

3. The resolution of the surrounding pattern is different than the ledger paper on the long-form birth certificate.

4. The image contains letters which could have been made with either a computer or a typewriter. The way some letters appear in the document shows that some of the letters were processed differently.

5. The birth certificate image shows evidence of kerning. Mr. Poyssick would like to see either another document without kerning or that the typewriter used to fill in the long-form birth certificate in 1961 actually had the capability to do kerning. He does state that old typewriter were not able to do kerning.

Mr. Poyssick is not willing to say that the Obama birth certificate image is a forgery. He does say that it is the product of “a document that was, in fact, merged from several originals.” Hence, he sure gives us enough information to doubt that it is authentic. Again, where is Congress and the FBI to do an appropriate investigation and to report to the American people their findings?

Be sure to read the new report by nationally recognized computer expert, Mara Zebest, entitled "Barack Obama: Long Form Birth Certificate." Ms. Zebest opines that the April 27, 2011 computer image of Obama's alleged long-form Certificate of Live Birth is a forgery. She explains in full detail in her report how she reaches her conclusion. At the end of her report, she provides a brief resume on her credentials which are impressive.

The report may be read athttp://www.wnd.com/files/Obama_LFBC_Report_final_draft.pdf

Again, where is Congress and the FBI to lead an investigation on Obama's fraudulent activities. The evidence point to the inescapable conclusion that we have an impostor sitting in the Office of the President and Commander in Chief. A majority of the American people are demanding an investigation. Why does not Congress and the FBI assure the American people that they have checked out the allegations against Obama and report back to The People they are supposed to serve and protect?

The Rules

THE RULES:

This blog does not advocate resort to any violence in order to bring about political change. Rather, what we advocate is resort to zealous use of one's First Amendment right to "freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in this blog's threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this post. Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics as to my planned tactics or strategies. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on various cases with my law practice, it may be several hours to 24 hours some days before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. Please try to stay on topic. The main focus of this blog -- the Obama Article II natural born Citizen eligibility issue and the historic Kerchner vs. Obama & Congress lawsuit. Thank you.